Observations were made from the LT* for two days. The first day while 
running with the seas this proved satisfactory. On the second day both ships 
were headed into building seas. Heading into the seas the LT was not at all 
stable. Its narrow beam causes it to plunge badly. Pitch and roll are very 
fast and make observing with glasses impossible. When higher seas are encoun¬ 
tered the tug is taking so much spray and green water that all exposed decks 
are secured. It is argued by the tug crew that they can sail them in any 
weather, but keeping them afloat and being acceptable for biological observa- 
» 
tions are distinctly different. In seas below eight feet (including swell,, 
the tug is satisfactory. In seas heavier than ten feet it is not possible to 
observe them. 
• v 
lata from eight hours of dual diurnal observation on the YAG and LT in¬ 
dicate that given good sea conditions the observer on the LT sees at leasu as 
4 
many birds as can be seen from the larger ship. These data also indicate 
that more birds may be seen from the smaller ship. There are two plausible 
explanations for this; First, the birds may avoid the larger ship as it 
presents a massive profile on the horizon. Secondly, the observer on the tug 
is closer to the water affording a better angle for observing low-flying 
birds. The lower angle presents a greater area of contrasting horizon (sea 
and sky) on which to spot birds. 
In good sea conditions the LT seems particularly effective in approach¬ 
ing feeding bird flocks. This is never accomplished with the YAG, apparently 
due to its large size. The tug’s greater maneuverability allows efficient 
pickup of downed birds. All collected birds were retrieved within five 
minutes. 
0 
* 
light tug. 
